Stroud v. Polk’s Empirical Analysis
466 F.3d 291 · 2006
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Williams v. Taylor · In re Oliver · Jones v. United States · Russell v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Hartman, we affirmed that “[elementary principles of due process require that an accused be informed of the specific charge against him,” 283 F.3d at 194 (citing Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 , 68 S.Ct. 514 , 92 L.Ed. 644 (1948)), and that “ ‘[a] person’s right to reasonable notice of a charge against him ... [is] basic in our system of jurisprudence,’ ” id. (quoting In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273 , 68 S.Ct. 499 , 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948)). Reasonable notice “sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet.” Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 763 , 82 S.Ct. 1038 , 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962) (internal quotation marks omitted) (evaluating indictment).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“method by which the crime was committed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.